Trump Derangement Syndrome vs. Reality: How U.S. National Security Decisions Are Actually Made

Triggered by the latest arrest of Nicolás Maduro, the level of Trump Derangement Syndrome amongst the chattering classes has once again drifted far beyond reality. This is not a blanket dismissal of legitimate criticism, nor a claim that Donald Trump is above scrutiny.

Donald Trump has never been a disciplined public speaker. He is, and always has been, a stream-of-consciousness communicator. He speaks off the cuff, improvises freely, exaggerates for effect, and often reaches for provocation rather than precision. Some of this is calculated. Some of it plainly is not. His rhetoric is informal, occasionally crude, often bombastic, and frequently unscripted.

None of this is new. None of it should surprise anyone who has paid even minimal attention over the past decade. What is remarkable is how consistently large segments of the political and media class refuse to distinguish between Trump’s public persona and the substance of the US Government’s decision-making on matters of state. His tone is treated as proof of recklessness, his mannerisms as evidence of instability, and his every offhand remark as if it were a fully formed strategic doctrine. This is not analysis. It is laziness.

Understanding Trump requires recognizing the gap between how he speaks publicly and how national-security decisions are actually made under his administration. Rhetoric dominates the headlines, but policy is shaped elsewhere, through institutional processes designed precisely to restrain impulse and channel power.

During Trump’s first term, the United States carried out a series of consequential military operations that followed established decision-making frameworks and relied on conventional military and intelligence channels. These included the 2017 missile strike on a Syrian airbase, the use of the MOAB against ISIS-K in Afghanistan, an intensified air campaign that contributed to the collapse of ISIS’s territorial control, the 2019 raid that killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and the 2020 drone strike that eliminated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. Counterterrorism operations continued in Somalia and Yemen, while naval patrols expanded in the South China Sea.

These were not impulsive acts. They were deliberate uses of force, executed through institutional mechanisms specifically designed to prevent rash decision-making.

More recently, Trump and his senior national-security team have overseen continued counter-ISIS missions, airstrikes against al-Shabaab, maritime security operations in the Red Sea and Gulf region, and a sustained Indo-Pacific military presence. The joint U.S.–Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities was widely regarded as operationally successful and strategically precise.

At the same time, Trump’s rhetoric on Ukraine often appears discordant with American actions. His language can be abrasive, even boorish, yet U.S. support for Ukraine and NATO has continued. He also succeeded where many of his predecessors failed by forcing NATO members, including Canada, to confront their chronic underinvestment in collective defence.

These facts do not require admiration. They require acknowledgement. Yet much of the media persists in portraying Trump as a deranged caricature, driven by impulse rather than process, simply because he says outlandish things about Greenland or muses aloud about geopolitical absurdities. The assumption appears to be that unconventional speech automatically signals strategic incompetence.

That assumption is misleading, and it clouds clear thinking. Trump’s communication style is chaotic. The US Government record on national-security decision-making is not. The persistent failure to distinguish between the two has produced exaggerated commentary, overheated headlines, and a steady erosion of credibility among those who claim to be serious analysts of international affairs.

The Venezuela operation fits squarely within this established pattern: force applied with defined objectives, limited scope, and an evident effort to avoid regional destabilization. Whether one supports it or not, it should be assessed on its strategic merits, not filtered through reflexive disdain for the man authorizing it.

Trump Derangement Syndrome ultimately says less about Trump than it does about those who succumb to it. When personality overwhelms analysis, judgment collapses. When outrage replaces assessment, seriousness disappears.

Trump is Trump. His style will not change. The more pressing test is whether our political and media class can recover the discipline to analyze power seriously.

Reacting to it emotionally is not analysis. It is clickbait.

Photo: iStock